In the United States and other western democracies (see it's in the phrase). We are currently in a degenerate cosmopolitan democracy that values wealth, possessions, and sex over virtue and intellectual pursuits. From here individuals are atomized. They begin to hate their situation and they demand the rule of a tyrant. This explains the phenomena of Trump, the support for Bernie Sanders, and even some of the youths support for Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.

As an American, I was surprised by the vociferous response of virtually any progressive millennial to brexit. I couldn't understand why they cared. Until it dawned on me, we have become so cosmopolitan that people want an all powerful supranational entity to rule over their quasi-bohemian lifestyle.

>>13516Its more than that democracy also promotes division it promotes say an us vs them mentality while a monarchy promotes unity between the people. This is why in history Monarchies have shown consistently being more stable than democracies.

>>13522Monarchy in the modern age would more likely than not )just like most totalitarian dictatorships) would fall at the hands of corruption, the rich would thrive even more than they do today, the lower middle class and the poor would be forced to deal with high prices, the way most monarchs are so stable is the same reason most dictatorships would last, on top of that now you have a populous that know about democracy. Which is why I would think that the problem doesn't lie at the type of government, but at the ignorance of the people to nationalism and pride in their nation (Probably why people don't have that much of a problem with immigrants)
>>13503Surely if people wanted to follow and be lead by an all powerful entity, they would follow the what the media says, right?

>>13404As >>13325, here is my justification ( although there is already one in my post ) :

- one way to see it is by following Marcus Aurelius's thought : humans make a big family and as such, are made to cooperate with each other ( due to the fact that every human is the same, compared to animals )

- another justification is based on the idea of society, we accept to live together because we want protection against danger, thievery ... , the protection relying on the social link between people, therefore being generous and respectful helps maintain that link and indirectly protect us - being selfish means drawing yourself slightly off society, risking danger)

Morality is subjective. I think the only right and wrong is how well you do you in life. If you are a depressed lolcow everyday that bitches then are most likely in the wrong and if you live life well and have fun they you are in the right. Ya dig?

Are you reading this text voluntarily? My personal guess is, that many will instinctively answer with yes. In German the adjective „voluntarily“ is translated to „freiwillig“, which means „with free will“ or more literal „free willy“.
Bad jokes aside, the definition of doing something voluntarily, is taking action according to your own free will. Now why I am focusing on this is, because I want to explore what it actually means to do something voluntarily, along the axis of determinism and free will.

Let’s assume you answered yes to the question of reading this text voluntarily.
And let’s assume our brains do function deterministically.
That would mean, you just had an illusion about having a free will.
The illusion, that you did have a choice, not to read this text this far. Some unknown law, which we try to approximate in the natural sciences, is entirely responsible for what you just did, including the feeling of doing it voluntarily.
It also means, that if you were able to go back in time, every time you did do so, the world and the universe would develop exactly the way they have always been destined to. Including you, reading this text, over and over again. Like a clockwork turning back and forth.
Consciously experiencing a movie that doesn’t feel like a movie but real. Being aware of this fact also means, that one of the characteristics of this deterministic system is, that it can understand itself.
Let’s have a look at it understanding itself.
If the voluntary guy exists in this deterministic system, his thoughts are part of this system and his conscious experience of having acted voluntarily describes the system in the same way, as an experience of not having done so, would.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Do u go to work bcuz u want to or bcuz if u dont then ppl with guns will come and violently force u from ur home?

U R NOT FREE

Your lifespan is someones currency. So lets say OK this guy is probably going to generate 1 million dollars in his lifetime. They create a stock certificate for him, using his Name when he is born. This is a negotiable instrument. So someone buys that.

Now its not his fault he has no idea. He thinks he is free but he cannot choose to not go to work one day or he will be on the street.

It doesnt matter if someone claims to own you. You have a soul with free will, but no control over what happens to you. So its not on you, it is their great injustice!

No, where I live it is very hard at times for a landlord to force people out of their rented places, even if they haven't paid for months and months. So no, no one will show up with guns and force you from your home.

You can choose to not work, there are plenty of folks who couch surf, and travel across the country, and do other things. Might not be the life everyone enjoys, but it is an option if you so choose.

> He thinks he is free but he cannot choose to not go to work one day or he will be on the street.

There are folks who are making sixty thousand dollars a year living on the street. Because other people are suckers and fall for their game and drop money into a cup. Sounds pretty harsh. More than I make.

> but no control over what happens to you.

Sure you do, but most people refuse to stand up for themselves. They choose to let the system abuse them.
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.

Why does Ayn Rand get so much criticism? I've only read The Fountainhead from her but from what I gather objectivism seems like it makes sense. It's kind of like this rational self interest that's similar to Nietzsche's philosiphy